> Did you look at figure five and wonder why the fuck betacoronaviruses were not in the dendrogram?
So the lack of a single family of coronaviruses in a single figure inverts the entire claim? Come on.
> Peer review is not perfect.
I’m inclined to trust it far more than a random internet commenter who can’t really explain their argument but instead spends more time swearing and writing childish insults like this:
> Use that thing under your cranial bone, and exercise discernment.
You're free to call me an armchair analyst and trivialize my 10 years of experience in the biological sciences, sometimes working 100 days straight, 100 hour weeks (paid at 26k USD in an expensive us city, no less), more importantly brutally failing about half of those years to learn enough to come out with a successful bioengineering project that used the exact skills necessary to perform a critical analysis of the paper.
I'm also free to claim that you're just projecting.
>single family of coronaviruses in a single figure inverts the entire claim
Yes, considering that SARS-CoV-2 is part of the betacoronaviruse clade. Did you miss that?
I hear you. Personal observations using negative psychological language are likely to come across as attacks no matter what you do, and they're also not particularly substantive, as well as nearly always off topic. Best to avoid.
